The Plumbline,

Volume 13. No.2. May/June 2008

It was Palm Sunday in our local church. The focus of
the whole service was the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. The
pastor proceeded to verbally paint a picture of the holy week in Jerusalem.
This included the agony in Gethsemane, the political and religious intrigue
regarding the interaction between the Jewish authorities and the Roman government.
Finally he gave a description of the crucifixion focusing on the crucifixion
technique as it applied to the victim. If a picture is worth a 1000 words this
pastor was painting a graphic picture with words. Especially the crucifixion
event itself was so well done that I could almost hear the crowd crying out
"give us "Barabbas" and I could almost feel the struggle of
Jesus on the cross as he tried to get His breath. I knew the historical
resources the pastor used that provided the palate he used to paint this
spellbinding picture. And even though I have not seen Mel Gibson's "The
Passion," still I felt I was there "when they crucified my
Lord." Then the pastor abruptly pivoted toward his conclusion and appeal.
He gave only a passing nod to Jesus death for our sins and providing eternal
life. He launched into his application. Here are his actual words: "He
died for you so you could approach Him today with whatever it is that is
weighing you down. Maybe it is a relationship that is not right at home or school
or work. Maybe it's a financial crisis. Maybe your kids are breaking your
heart. Maybe you are disappointed in yourself. You can't get over the hump, or
some behavior in your life. You are lonely, sick or grieving. The cross is
where God's best meets man's worst as we see the cross with fresh eyes."

I have no idea what view this pastor holds regarding
the atonement. It really doesn't fit any of the historical views. Maybe we
could dub it the "life application atonement." This type of appeal
becomes more significant in the current environment, for now there is an open
and frontal attack on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice and substitutionary
death to pay the penalty for our sins Within evangelicalism, with its plethora
of odd and often heretical teachings, we now have, if not a full fledged war,
at least major skirmishes breaking out regarding the meaning of the death of
Christ. There are many major voices identified and accepted as fellow
evangelicals, who are chiming in to challenge and target the Penal
Substitutionary Atonement, hereafter PSA.

Mark Driscoll comments on a blog; "a war is
brewing over this issue. This is the issue we must be willing to fight over. If
we lose this (PSA) we lose the Gospel. If you deny this (PSA) you have
essentially lost the Christian faith... As my subsititute he endured what I deserve
in order to give me what I don't deserve."

But Driscoll represents a small minority of voices
rising to challenge this attack on the atonement. Many church leaders are
apparently just too distracted in their seeker-sensitive endeavors to even be
aware. Or worse yet this issue is not seen as sufficiently important.
Admittedly, there have and always will be differences of opinions about certain
peripheral aspects of theology such as the time and manner of second coming, or
baptism etc. etc. But PSA has until recently been the default setting for
evangelicals of all descriptions. Understandably, the liberal/modernistic
church has for decades since the turn of the century rejected PSA by dubbing it
a "slaughter house" religion. (Harry Emerson Fosdick). But this new
"Atonement War" is now openly being prosecuted among evangelicals in
a version of an evangelical on evangelical conflict.

The two precipitating factors were two books written
by evangel icals, one published in the UK and the other in the U~A. In a recent
book “The Lost Message of Jesus” Steve Chalke, a widely known evangelical in
Britain chose to express his opposition to PSA. Actually it was Chalke's
inflammatory statement that PSA was a form of "cosmic child abuse, which
caused concern and open controversy among other evangelicals in Britain. In the
USA Joel Green and Mark D. Baker recently authored "Recovering the Scandal
of the Cross." published by InterVarsity Press. Green and Baker's thesis
is that the NT displays a rich array of interpretations of the cross. Some
called their view the "kaleidoscope atonement." Their burden is to
show that there has been a monopoly on the view of the atonement (PSA) and that
there are actually many other biblical metaphors that enable us to communicate
the cross in fresh ways to our postmodern culture. Green and Baker are not
content to place PSA in the mix of cross metaphors. They are suggesting that
PSA is based on a mistaken concept of God's wrath. They see PSA as
"promoting a 'divisive child abuse model of the atonement." P.181.
Green is a professor at Fuller Seminary and Baker is at Biblical Seminary.
These Authors and a growing list of evangelicals who endorse them, represent
voices of dissent from a long strain of mainline evangelicals. They assert that
PSA is unbecoming of a God of love and not an adequate expression of the
biblical view.

Those attacking PSA cleverly begin their assault on
PSA by emphasizing that there is a variety of views in the scriptures of the
atonement. As we will see shortly there are other truths regarding the cross
taught in scripture. But these critics then go on to call for the rejection of
PSA and want to eliminate PSA altogether. Most challengers suggest that PSA is
repulsive making God into a psychopath or a cosmic child abuser. Some of the
challengers employ the metaphor of a bouquet of roses with a lull bouquet of
atonement stories, with differing colors and differing fragrances that can
appeal to a wider range of individuals But, they press for the plucking out and
discarding the PSA rose altogether. They are bent on purging PSA from the
church.

Perhaps here we need to define PSA more
specifically. Tom Schreiner gives the following definition:

"The Father because of His love for human
beings, sent his Son, (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisly his
justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The penalty we deserved was
laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that at the cross both God's holiness
and love are manifested... I am not claiming that it (PSA) is the only truth
about the atonement taught in the scriptures, nor am I claiming that PSA is
emphasized in every piece of literature, or that every author clearly
articulates PSA. But I am saying that PSA functions as the anchor and
foundation for the other dimensions of the atonement." (Web... Between Two
Worlds).

"Christ's death was 'penal' in that he bore a penalty when he died. His death was also
a 'substitution' in that he was a substitute
for us when he died. This has been the orthodox understanding of the
atonement held by evangelicals theologians, in contrast to other views that
attempt to explain the atonement apart from the idea of the wrath of God or
payment for the penalty for sin. This PSA view is sometimes called the vicarious atonement A vicar is someone
who stands in the place of another or who represents another. Christ's death
was therefore 'vicarious' because he stood in our place and represented us. As
our representative he took the penalty that we deserve." (Grudem, Bible Doctrine, p.254).

Indeed, as Dr. Schreiner states, PSA is not the only
teaching in scripture regarding Jesus death. There are truly other aspects to
Jesus' death. But the atoning death of Jesus stands alone in that it is the
centerpiece of reconciling sinners to our holy and heavenly Father. There are
two views of the atonement that are found in Scripture. The difficulty is that
they emphasized and PSA is denied.

The Moral Influence theory

This view of the atonement limits Christ's death to
a radical example of Christ's love that influences sinners morally, but does
not pay any price on their behalf. God's justice demands no payment for sin.
First Peter 2:21 is the primary text for this view. "Christ also suffered
for you, leaving you an example." But just a few verses later (v.24) Peter
refers to the subsitutionary aspect of the cross, "He Himself bore our
sins in his body on a tree..." Even in this primary passage regarding the
moral influence of Christ's death, it can't stand alone without the central
message of substitution.

Christus Victor

This view attempts to limit Christ's cross work to
the defeating of the powers of evil. Indeed, Col. 2:15 assets; "He
disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing
over them in him." Indeed Christ's death defeated the powers of darkness.
But directly preceding this statement in V.14 Paul points to the substitionary
aspect of the cross by stating: "By canceling the record of debt that
stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to
the cross."Here as in other
contexts, PSA stand in the central place.

These two views (Christus Victor and the Moral
example) are indeed presented in scripture. But they can't stand alone. These
views are only complementary to the sacrificial death of Christ. Someone in my
reading referred to the various presentations of the cross as a choir in which
all the biblical references to the cross are like a harmonious choir. I would
like to adjust this illustration and suggest that the sacrificial death of
Christ is the soloist and the other biblical references to the cross are like
background singers that enhance the voice of the soloist.

The Governmental Theory

This view states that there is no actual payment of
sin at the cross. Rather the cross was a public display of how God is grieved
at our sin and that his government is based on law. In this view this public
display of the suffering of Jesus is intended to cause people to feel sorry for
their sin and repent. This view has no reference point in scripture.

The Ransom to Satan Theory

This theory was first put forward by Origen in the
post-apostolic era. This view suggested that Satan was tricked into accepting
Christ's death in exchange for the souls of sinners, not realizing that Christ
would rise from the dead. Origen based this on a misunderstanding of Mark 1:45
and 1 Timothy 2:6. There has been a revival of this view in recent years by
various Word-Faith teachers, especially Kenneth Copeland. They teach that
Christ purchased a ransom for sinners by literally suffering in hell after his
death on the cross. Christ suffered in Hell in order to render a payment to Satan.
(Phil Johnson). They also teach that Jesus became a sinner in hell and after
becoming a ransom he was tormented by Satan after which Jesus in hell was
"born-again." By this view Copeland can assert that Jesus did not pay
for our sins on the cross. Jesus, the one who became a sinner in hell after his
suffering there, was born-again by the father and then was raised to life on
the third day. Jesus, while still in hell became the first born-again sinner.
The application point among Word-Fathers is that as Jesus was born-again, the
"first born among brethren," so also every born-again believer
becomes a son of God with the same power and authority as Christ. But the whole
theory is flawed because Jesus became a sacrifice to God. Satan has no rights
in God's redemptive scheme.

Paula White, a divorced Word-Faith TV personality,
recently added a bizarre dimension to what Jesus did on the cross. In her new
book "The Seven Places Jesus Shed His Blood", she proceeds to refer
to the 7 wounds of Jesus and shamelessly asserts that for example; "Jesus'
hands were pierced for your total dominion." She states: "If you want
dominion, and want to break the spirit of poverty, sickness, disease,
generation curses, God really did this for you on Calvary." Larry Hutch,
on the TV show with her, then asserts "Jesus is not the only begotten son
of God. He is not. I am also a son of God for he is the firstborn of
many." This "ransom to Satan" theory and the governmental theory
have no reference points in scripture other than crude and obvious
misinterpretation.

Concluding Remarks

“In summary Christ died in stead of us
(substitution) as a sacrifice that took away the guilt of our sins (expiation),
the wrath of God (propitiation), God's alienation from us (reconciliation), and
delivered us from our captivity to the curse of the law, the penalty of sin,
and the pollution of sin, (redemption)... The objectors to PSA openly dismiss
the view that Christ alone, in a unique ministry, representing His people, stood
in for us under the judgment of God, and by His blood atoned for us, satisfying
God's justice by his substitutionary death. Either Christ has endured God's
justice for us on the cross or we must do so for ourselves in hell... They must
assume God will accept what Paul calls 'rubbish' in Phil. 3:8. They shamelessly
replace what Christ has done for us with what we can do for ourselves. (David
Linden)

"The bottom line is this. God does not dismiss
his wrath against sin and sinners by a wave of his hand. Mercy is no magical
wand that causes the holiness and justice of God to disappear. Either Jesus
Christ is my substitute, has endured and suffered in himself and thereby
satisfied the wrath of God I deserved, or I must do so forever in Hell."
(Sam Storms).

"...There was but one way to bring about the
desired salvation which would be in harmony with God's character, the law of
God, the nature of sin and the needs of man. This one way was by the
substitutionary blood atonement of the incarnate Son of God." (Robert A.
Morey, Studies in the Atonement, p.9)

The subtitle "There is no substitute for
substitution" is from Christianity Today.